Our unalienable right to define words any way we darn well please? On Friday, 26 June 2015, the United States Supreme Court, on a 5-4 decision, ruled that “same-sex marriage” was legal and mandated in the Fifty States, as reported by The Blaze and elsewhere.

The tone of the decision was “inspiring” and emotional, and had no resemblance to any logical and constitutional reasoning, and in the words of one commentator, was a five-lawyer coup d’etat. These five Nazgul have taken it upon themselves to change the definition of a word that has been very clearly defined for more than 6,000 years. They have assumed, for the fedgov, powers that were supposed to be reserved for the people, and which the people could grant to the states but NEVER voted to grant to DC. They have finished burying the putrid corpse of a limited, federal, constitutional government, and been applauded for their action by millions of liberals AND conservatives. They have created a situation as fraught with danger for peace and even the most tenuous of ties as the Dred Scott decision.

There are millions of people who very clearly stated that they would NOT abide by a decision of the Nazgul to ram this idea, this concept, down the throats of the Fifty States: I do not know how many of them will keep their sworn promise to do so, but even if only a fraction do, that fraction will include people willing to back up their promises with the threat of action AND action well beyond mere “civil disobedience.”

People can do whatever they want, in the privacy of their bedrooms and houses and even their clubs and camps, and for that matter, as long as they don’t scare the animals and children, in public too, disgusting as it may be. (Or at least they should be able to do so: but how many things that are done in the privacy of your home or bedroom are now illegal, or have strong efforts attempting to make them illegal, from smoking and using too much water to flush your toilet or take your shower, to saying certain words or many other things?)

I believe homosexuality to be wrong and stupid, but I do not hate homosexuals for what they do with each other. In the same way, I believe that most people, including those I work with daily, those who live nearby, those I buy and sell to, are doing things that are wrong and stupid, but I do not hate them for that, either. Sin is sin, immorality is immorality. That is not the point here: the point is that people who believe that something is wrong are being required (again) to support it by the theft of money from them (in the form of taxes) to support government, by the fact that government is involved in something for which it has NO authority, and by the fact that already failure, not just to accept and tolerate but to endorse and promote this abomination, is being punished by government and the same activists that demand freedom for them to practice their perversions. (Indeed, I open myself and Mama Liberty to such punishment merely by discussing this!)

This decision makes it very clear that at LEAST two dominating cultures both claim exclusive jurisdiction over the same people and the same territory, and frankly neither one of them is very appealing or even tolerable. Republicans, whatever kind of moderate or conservative they claim to be, face off against the Democratic/Liberal (Tranzi) and treat all of us, our lives and our liberty and our property, as their pawns. There is little if any “live and let live” left: we must (or so we are told) endorse one or the other: we cannot reject both – and I personally cannot stomach either, much less both.

Actually, the good thing about this is that even if just some people keep their promises, it speeds up the collapse of both a corrupt society and that religion called the State. As someone pointed out, the government HAS set itself up as a religion, for now “Christianity” and Islam are its enemies, but there is no question that soon both humanists and atheists will be its enemies as well. The decision yesterday by the Nazgul (6-3) which amounts to rewriting a flawed and evil law to “fit” in their vision of society and government, and then today’s decision, will convince more and more people that even a very limited and qualified trust in government is totally misplaced. At least some of those people will finally see government for the evil that it is, and understand that even so-called “good” that comes from it is both flawed and highly suspect because you cannot get good fruit from an evil tree. Quoting a certain Man, “You cannot get bad fruit from a good tree, nor good fruit from a bad tree,” and “You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?” We are closer than ever to being free from government and its evil.

Back to my original point: government is redefining words however they please, to meet political expectations and goals. If the fedgov and the Nazgul can redefine “marriage” then they can redefine “freedom” and “liberty” and “republic” and “democracy” and the world of 1984 is that much expanded. They have traded the “liberty” of a few million people to define the word and thereby get the approval and endorsement of “the people” (the State), and at the same time stolen away the liberty of everyone, including those very people, to hold and express views. And indeed, will punish them. There will be many in the GOP and elsewhere who will, now that the demigods in black robes have spoken, become fervent converts to the cause of “same-sex marriage” and become the most fanatic of persecutors against those who do not. (And this will include millions of religious people who have up until now been opposed, based on the idea that “if its legal, its moral.”) And the courts and legislative bodies and executives from villages and townships to the statehouses, will (having accepted the political power of a couple of million “long-haired men and short-haired women” -to paraphrase Heinlein), decide that their only response to being told by these people to jump will be to ask “how high.” They will be expected to (and WILL) prove their loyalty to the State (the FedGov, including the Nazgul) by passing and enforcing laws that will punish people and businesses who do not endorse and promote homosexuality, and by passing (or repealing) laws that forbid other previously detested relationships: polyamory (both polygamy and polyandry), pedophilia, and more. Any written or spoken opposition or disapproval, much less preaching or teaching that such things are a “sin” or “wrong,” will be suppressed. And as we have seen time and time again on this poor old planet, once the freedom of speech starts to slip away, more of it goes quickly.

Indeed, we see the same thing happening with the “chase of the Confederate Flat” situation in the last two weeks. It is no longer enough to say you don’t like the Confederate flag, (let alone support it or … gasp, fly it!), you must now come out to boycott those who would dare to sell it or speak up for it, or even for the right to be offensive and fly it. Expect legislation soon that will treat symbols of the CSA in the same way that Germany (and most European states) treat symbols of National Socialism. And can anyone be honest in spouting the “common wisdom” that the Nazgul in the court system will stand up for freedom of expression?

2 Responses to The unalienable right to define words as we want?

“These five Nazgul have taken it upon themselves to change the definition of a word that has been very clearly defined for more than 6,000 years.”

Not really.

Marriage has existed for far longer than 6,000 years. Marriage has existed since people have existed — and same-sex marriage has existed for as long as gay men and lesbians have existed, which is almost exactly the same length of time.

Marriage has also been continuously defined and re-defined as a social custom over time, with some definitions tending to prevail in some places. Even within Christianity in particular, marriage has gone through several re-definitions over the last two millennia, from polygamy to monogamy and with various interpretations of the role of women, ranging from “they’re property” to “they’re equals” and everything in between.

In the United States, the STATES took it upon themselves to adopt one fairly prevalent definition and impose it on everyone when they usurped the unenumerated right to marriage with their “licensing” schemes.

All that SCOTUS said was “no, the states don’t get to monopolize the definition of marriage in this particular way any more just because doing so curries favor with some particular religious sects.”

That works for me Thomas, of course. I only object to the “state” at any level having control of that definition or practice, and the whole licensing scheme – regardless of whether religion is involved or not..